Proceedings of the sixth national wild turkey symposium · 2015. 11. 19. · FORWARD The first National Wild Turkey Symposium was held in Memphis, Tennessee in 1959, and the second

Proceedings of

The Sixth National Wild Turkey Symposium

I' !

I ' I, . . '• I . , ... ~ ' • ·I •1 ' 1\

r; , 1

. I

\ I I \ :: 1:

'• : L_r_ .)..__

I' ' •f · ~r ; ' 1f ) , / 1

; ' I I v ~ . I f, 1 ( I : I I ! ,, I I I i i

/, I . I

I

PROCEEDINGS OF THE

SIXTH NATIONAL WILD TURKEY SYMPOSIUM

26 February - 1 March 1990

Charleston, South Carolina

Edited by

William M. Healy and U.S. Forest Service

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Amherst, Massachusetts 01003

Georgette B. Healy Department of Forestry and Wildlife University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01003

Sponsored by

South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department,

National Wild Turkey Federation,

South Carolina Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation,

and U.S. Forest Service

Published by

National Wild Turkey Federation P.O. Box530

Edgefield, South Carolina 29824

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 90-61366

Cover: "After Hugo" by W. M. Healy

FORWARD

The first National Wild Turkey Symposium was held in Memphis, Tennessee in 1959, and the second was held in Columbia, Missouri in 1970. Since then, Symposia have been held at 5-year intervals. Proceedings have been published for all of the Symposia, and except for the second, they are cited as a series. The second Symposium was published by the University of Missouri Press in 1973 and titled "Wild Turkey Management, Current Problems and Programs." Copies of all National Wild Turkey Symposia, including the second, can be obtained from the National Wild Turkey Federation, Edgefield, South Carolina.

The technical sessions at the sixth Symposium were enhanced by a trip to the Francis Marion National Forest to observe one of the oldest turkey management areas in the country and the devastation caused by Hurricane Hugo in September 1989. The FMNF Wildlife Preserve was established by Presidential Proclamation in 1948 and occupies about 19,000 ha of excellent wildlife habitat. The preserve has been managed cooperatively by the U.S. Forest Service and the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.

Part of the preserve, the Waterhom Tract, is particularly significant to the history of wild turkey restoration. This area contains one of the purest strains of eastern wild turkey in the South, and it served as the source for restocking the Piedmont and mountains of South Carolina. It was also the area where H.L. "Duffy" Holbrook perfected the cannon-netting technique for capturing turkeys, and ushered in the modem era of turkey restoration. Much of the mature timber was blown down during Hurricane Hugo, but the turkeys seem to have taken the change in stride. We thank Duffy Holbrook, Jack Alcock, and the National Forest staff for an informative and enjoyable field trip.

Many people helped make the Symposium a success: Symposium Chairman John E. Frampton and Co-Chairman Dave Baumann; Conference Committee members Drenia Corley, Sharon Harsey, Bill Mahan, Debbie Owens, Tom Swayngham, Pete Swiderek, Donna Swygert, and Alvin Wright; Program Committee members Dave Baumann (Chairman), Sam Beasom, Jim Dickson, Bill Healy, James Earl Kennamer, Dick Kimmel, John Lewis, Terry Little, Curtis Taylor, Larry Vangilder, Ron Engel-Wilson, Jerry Wunz, and Bill Zeedyk. We thank the authors for their hard work, cooperation, and patience. All manuscript reviewers provided thorough, thoughtful, and courteous comments, making our job easier and improving the quality of the Proceedings. The Program Committee evaluated the preliminary abstracts and arranged the program. The Northeastern Forest Experiment Station and the University of Massachusetts, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, provided office support. The National Wild Turkey Federation is the publisher and distributor of the Proceedings, and we thank James Earl Kennamer and Mary C. Kennamer of NWTF for their advice and help.

Reviewers

David E. Austin Dave Baumann Ron Brenneman Jim Cardoza Michael Cartwright Scott Darling Ron Engel-Wilson Robert E. Eriksen Danny Everett JayExum Steve Garman Curt Griffin

Lowell K. Halls Arnie Hayden H. L. "Duffy" Holbrook H. Todd Holbrook George Hurst Dick Kimmel Don Kroodsma John B. Lewis Dale May Cheryl Mollohan James C. Pack

Paul Phalen Bill Porter Winston Paul Smith Dan Speake Paul Steblein Robert J. Stoll Matt Vander Haegen Larry Vangilder Lovett E. Williams, Jr. GeneW. Wood BillZeedyk

~k ll/.:)1~ William M. Healy, Editor~

/! ~ /~;5 Georgette B. Healy, Editor

ii

CONTENTS

Session 1: Terry Little, Chairman

CURRENT STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE WILD TURKEY, 1989

James Earl Kennamer and Mary C. Kennamer ........................................................................................... 1-12

WILD TURKEY NESTING ECOLOGY ON THE FRANCIS MARION NATIONAL FOREST

Hugh R. Still, Jr. and David P. Baumann, Jr .............................................................................................. 13-17

WILD TURKEY NESTING HABITAT AND SUCCESS RATES Ronald S. Seiss, Paul S. Phalen, and George A Hurst.. ........................................................................... 18-24

CHRONOLOGY OF GOBBLING AND NESTING ACTIVITIES OF MERRIAM'S WILD TURKEYS

Richard W. Hoffman ...................................................................................................................................... 25-31

Session II: James Miller, Chairman

RELATIONSHIP OF WILD TURKEY POPULATIONS TO CLEARINGS CREATED

FOR BROOD HABITAT IN OAK FORESTS IN PENNSYLVANIA

Gerald A Wunz .............................................................................................................................................. 32-38

HABITATS USED BY WILD TURKEY HENS DURING THE SUMMER

IN OAK FORESTS IN PENNSYLVANIA Anthony S. Ross and Gerald A Wunz ........................................................................................................ 39-43

EFFECTS OF PRESCRIBED BURNING ON WILD TURKEY HABITAT

PREFERENCE AND NEST SITE SELECTION IN SOUTH GEORGIA D. Clay Sisson, Dan W. Speake, J. Larry Landers, and James L. Buckner ............................................ 44-50

Session III: James Dickson, Chairman

WILD TURKEY USE OF DAIRY FARM-TIMBERLAND HABITATS

IN SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA Edward P. Lambert, Winston Paul Smith, and Roy D. Teitelbaum ....................................................... 51-60

USE OF LOBLOLLY PINE PLANTATIONS BY WILD TURKEY HENS IN EAST-CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI

David R. Smith, George A Hurst, John D. Burk, Bruce D. Leopold, and M. Anthony Melchoirs .. 61-66

HOME RANGES, MOVEMENTS, AND HABITAT USE OF WILD TURKEY HENS

IN NORTHERN MISSOURI Eric W. Kurzejeski and John B. Lewis ........................................................................................................ 67-71

ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF GOULD'S TURKEYS IN SOUTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO

Sanford D. Schemnitz, Daniel E. Figert, and Robert C. Willging .......................................................... 72-83

Session IV: Ron Engel-Wilson, Chairman

WILD TURKEY USE OF STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONES IN

LOBLOLLY PINE PLANTATIONS John D. Burk, George A Hurst, David R. Smith, Bruce D. Leopold, and James G. Dickson ........... 84-89

OAK AND FLOWERING DOGWOOD FRUIT PRODUCTION FOR EASTERN WILD TURKEYS

James G. Dickson ........................................................................................................................................... 90-95

WILD TURKEY AND ROAD RELATIONSHIPS ON A VIRGINIA NATIONAL FOREST

Leigh A McDougal, Michael R. Vaughan, and Peter T. Bromley ....................................................... 96-106

iii

Session V: John B. Lewis, Chairman

APPLICATION OF POPULATION MODELING TECHNIQUES TO WILD TURKEY MANAGEMENT

William F. Porter, H. Brian Underwood, and Daniel J. Gefell ........................................................... 107-118 EFFECTS OF FALL EITHER-SEX HUNTING ON SURVIVAL IN AN IOWA WILD TURKEY POPULATION

Terry W. Little, James M. Keinzler, and Gregory A Hanson ............................................................. 119-125 TURKEY SIGHTINGS BY HUNTERS OF ANTLERLESS DEER AS AN INDEX TO WILD TURKEY ABUNDANCE IN MINNESOTA

Robert J. Welsh and Richard 0. Kimmel. .............................................................................................. 126-133 CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR WILD TURKEY RELEASE PRIORITIES IN INDIANA

Steven E. Backs and Carl H. Eisfelder .................................................................................................... 134-143

Session VI: Arnold Hayden, Chairman

TELEMETRY DATA MANAGEMENT: A GIS-BASED APPROACH Timothy S. Wynn and George A Hurst .................................................................................................. 144-148

DISTINGUISHING INDIVIDUAL MALE WILD TURKEYS BY DISCRIMINATION OF VOCALIZATIONS

Frederick C. Dahlquist, Sanford D. Schemnitz, and Brian K. Flachs ................................................. 149-156

Session VII: Robert McAnally, Chairman

EXPENDITURES FOR WILD TURKEY HUNTING David P. Baumann, Jr., Larry D. Vangilder, Curtis I. Taylor, Ronald Engel-Wilson, Richard 0. Kimmel, and Gerald A Wunz ..................................................... 157-166

CHARACTERISTICS, ATTITUDES, AND PREFERENCES OF MISSOURI'S SPRING TURKEY HUNTERS

Larry D. Vangilder, Steven L. Sheriff, and Gail S. Olson .................................................................... 167-176 ATTITUDES, OPINIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF A SELECT GROUP OF ARKANSAS SPRING TURKEY HUNTERS

Michael E. Cartwright and Ronald A Smith ......................................................................................... 177-187 INFLUENCE OF HUNTER HARVEST ON THE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF WILD TURKEYS IN NEW YORK

William F. Porter, Daniel J. Gefell, and H. Brian Underwood ........................................................... 188-195

Session VIII: Ron Brenneman, Chairman

EVALUATION OF A POPULATION MODEL AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL IN IOWA Willie J. Suchy, Gregory A Hanson, and Terry W. Little .................................................................... 1%-204

WILD TURKEY PRODUCTION, FALL AND SPRING HARVEST INTERACTIONS, AND RESPONSES TO HARVEST MANAGEMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA

Gerald A Wunz and Anthony S. Ross .................................................................................................... 205-207 EFFORT, SUCCESS, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SPRING TURKEY HUNTERS ON TALLAHALA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA, MISSISSIPPI

William E. Palmer, George A Hurst, and John R. Lint ...................................................................... 208-213 MANDATORY LANDOWNER CONSENT AS A METHOD OF CONTROLLING WILD TURKEY HUNTER DENSITY AND HUNTER SUCCESS RATES

Brian K. Miller and Dale W. May ............................................................................................................ 214-223 SYMPOSIUM SUMMARY: LOOKING TOWARD 2000

William M. Healy ....................................................................................................................................... 224-228

iv

CURRENT STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE WILD TURKEY, 1989

JAMES EARL KENNAMER, Research and Management Department, National Wild Turkey Federation, Edgefield, SC 29824

MARY C. KENNAMER, Research and Management Department, National Wild Turkey Federation, Edgefield, SC 29824

Abstract: The wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) population in the United States and Canada is estimated to be 3.5 million. That's about 1 million more than estimated in 1986 and about 3 million more than recorded by Henry Mosby at the first National Wild Turkey Symposium in 1959. When states that gave no estimate are accounted for, the total population approaches 4 million. Turkeys are found in every state except Alaska; 47 of the 49 states have huntable turkey populations. All 49 states with wild turkey populations plan to have a spring wild turkey hunting season by the year 1991. Restocking programs are complete in 12 states, and 16 other states predict completion by 1995. All suitable turkey habitat should be restocked by the year 2000.

The wild turkey is on a roll. The outlook is so positive that biologists predict all suitable wild turkey habitat will be stocked with wild-trapped birds of the appropriate subspecies by the year 2000.

According to H. S. Mosby, who spoke on the status and distribution of the wild turkey at the first National Wild Turkey Symposium in 1959, " ... twenty years ago [1938] it was thought that the bird was doomed to extirpation" (Mosby 1959:1 ). Significant state and national legislation, including protection, increased interest by hunters/sportsmen, a concerted restocking effort by state wildlife agencies, combined with dramatic changes in wildlife management technology have made the difference in the comeback.

The 1930s were years of positive improve-ment in the field of wildlife management. Aldo Leopold wrote "Game Management" in 1933, the Cooperative Wildlife Research Units were established in 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened the first National Wildlife Conference (now known as the North American Wildlife Conference) in 1936, and the Pittman-Robertson Act was passed in 1937. Wild turkey populations during this period had retreated to areas not readily accessible to humans.

Since 1940 turkey populations and the area of occupied range have increased substantially (Mosby 1959, 1973, 1975; Bailey 1980; Kennamer 1986). State restoration programs, using birds caught from wild populations, are largely responsible for the re-establishment and

1

expansion of the range of wild turkeys. We describe the distribution of wild turkeys in the United States in 1989. We also provide estimates of turkey populations, harvests, and numbers of hunters; information on methods used to estimate populations and harvest; and the status of state restoration programs. Additionally, we compare occupied range in 1979 and 1989, as well as 1979 predicted potential turkey population numbers with 1989 population estimates.

We sincerely thank the following members of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) Technical Committee who provided the respective state information: G. Widder, Alabama; R. Engel-Wilson, Arizona; R. Smith, Arkansas; J. Massie, California; R. Hoffman, Colorado; D. May, Connecticut; K Reynolds, Delaware; N. Eichholz, Florida; R. Thackston, R. Simpson, and T. Holbrook, Georgia; T. Lum (representing R. Walker), Hawaii; T. Hemker, Idaho; J. Garvey, Illinois; S. Backs, Indiana; D. Jackson, Iowa; K Sexson, Kansas; G. Wright, Kentucky; D. Timmer, Louisiana; P. Bozenhard, Maine; J. Sandt, Maryland; J. Cardoza, Massachusetts; J. Urbain, Michigan; G. Nelson, Minnesota; B. Herring and E. Hackett, Mississippi; L. Vangilder, Missouri; S. Knapp, Montana; K Menzel, Nebraska; S. Stiver, Nevada; T. Walski, New Hampshire; B. Eriksen, New Jersey; D. Sutcliffe, New Mexico; D. Austin, New York; M. Seamster, North Carolina; L. Tripp, North Dakota; L. Culbertson and B. Stoll, Ohio; R. Smith and R. Masters, Oklahoma; K Durbin, Oregon; G.

Proceedings of the Sixth National Wild Turkey Symposium

Wunz and B. Drake, Pennsylvania; J. Chadwick, Rhode Island; D. Baumann, South Carolina; L. Rice, South Dakota; J. Murrey, Tennessee; D. Wilson and J. Campo, Texas; J. Roberson, Utah; S. Darling, Vermont; G. Norman, Virginia; D. Blatt, Washington; C. Taylor, West Virginia; E. Frank, Wisconsin; and H. Harju, Wyoming.

METHODS

Data were obtained from members of the NWTF Technical Committee. The NWTF Technical Committee is made up of biologists responsible for wild turkey programs from each state. Since the formation of the technical committee, this group of biologists has been the source of information concerning the wild turkey in the various states (Kennamer 1986).

In fall1989 committee members completed questionnaires about the status of turkeys in their states and provided state maps showing the distribution of turkeys at the county level. The information was traced from the individual state maps to form a composite national map. The NWTF has compiled information provided by the committee members to determine the nationwide status of the wild turkey.

RESULTS

Distribution

Wild turkeys are found in every state except Alaska, including 10 states outside the ancestral range, or, turkeys in 49 states compared to 37 states in 1959. The map (Fig. 1) indicates the distribution of the wild turkey by subspecies, including hybrid populations. Significant changes have occurred since the distribution map was compiled by Bailey (1980). Further changes were indicated by Kennamer (1986) as states increased their restoration and stocking programs.

Bailey (1980) compiled data on 36 states, which indicated 505,565 square miles of occupied range. In Kennamer (1986) 45 states indicated occupied range had increased to about 542,000 square miles. Data collected in 1989 estimate the occupied range at 553,000 square miles in 44 states. Occupied range has

2

increased in 30 states over previous figures. The greatest expansions have taken place in 21 states, most notably Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Table 1).

Rhode Island and Delaware were the last 2 states within the historic range to re-establish turkey populations. The last state in historic range to re-establish a spring wild turkey season is Delaware, which will reopen in 1991.

Populations

There are an estimated 3.5 million wild turkeys in the United States and Canada, 43 states and 3 provinces reporting (Table 2). That's 3 million more than the population estimate for 37 states reported at the first Symposium (Mosby 1959). The estimate is almost 1 million more wild turkeys than estimated in "Guide to the American Wild Turkey" (Kennamer 1986).

Bailey (1980) included "population potential" in his data compiled on the 4 hunted subspecies. He said that 29 states estimated their total population potential at 2.2 million, about 0.4 million higher than the 1979 population of 1.8 million. Figures compiled from 49 states in 1989 indicate most states have surpassed their predicted potential (Table 3). Eighteen states showed at least a 13% growth in 1989 population estimates over Bailey's (1980) predicted population potential.

This is the first time that estimates for the Gould's turkey (M g. mexicana) have been included in the overall figures presented at a national symposium. Their numbers are under 200, and the subspecies is not hunted in the United States.

Over 15 states reported significant population growth compared with the 1986 figures. Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Wisconsin are notable for their increases. Oklahoma and Virginia are the only states indicating population declines (Table 4).

Forty-two states have systematic ways of making population estimates. Some states use more than 1 technique to arrive at wild turkey population estimates, and 6 states do not make population estimates (Table 5).

~

LEGEND

I2:J EASTERN ll!ill FLORIDA

[±) RIO GRANDE

~ MERRIAM'S

mJ GOULD's EJ HYBRID

rJQ ~

C:


Table 1. Comparison of occupied range (square milesa) of wild turkeys in the U.S. between 1979 and 1989.

Source State Bailey 1980 Kennamer 1986 This re12ort 1989

Alabama 32,000 31,250 -35,000 Arizona 9,900 7,180 7,180 Arkansas 25,000 27,000 22,301 California 13,000 16,000 9,000 Colorado 6,800

Status and Distribution • Kennamer and Kennamer

Table 2. Population estimates of the wild turkey in the U.S. and canada determined by state agency and province wild turkey project leaders, 1989.

State Estimate Subs~eciesa State Estimate Subs~ecies

Alabama >350,000 Eastern New York >65,000 Eastern Arizona No estimate Merriam's North carolina 20,000 Eastern

16,000 Eastern

350,000 Eastern Wisconsin 60,000 Eastern Missouri 350,000-400,000 Eastern Wyoming 15,000-20,000 Merriam's Montana No estimate Eastern 150 Hybrid

Merriam's Nebraska 15,000 Merriam's u.s. total 3,420, 7 47-3,506,562

15,000 Hybrid 100 Eastern canada 100 Rio Grande Alberta >700 Merriam's

Nevada 800 Rio Grande Manitoba 2,000 Merriam's


Table 3. Potential wild turkey population numbers as estimated in 1979, estimates of wild turkey numbers in 1989, and the comparison between the two.

State 197ga 1989 Comparison

Alabama 250,000 >350,000 Over Arizona 18,000 No estimate Unknown Arkansas 200,000 100,000 Below California 43,000 100,400 Over Colorado 15,000 No estimate Unknown Connecticut 7,000 6,000 Below Delaware b 600 Unknown Florida b 100,000 Unknown Georgia 40,000 325,000 Over Hawaii 5,000 No estimate Unknown Idaho 2,000 3,400 Over Illinois 10,000 35,000 Over Indiana 10,000 30,000 Over Iowa 30,000 >100,000 Over K.:ansas 20,000 No estimate Unknown Kentucky 50,000 >20,000 Below Louisiana 50,000 35,000 Below Maine 500 500-700 Even Maryland b 10,000 Unknown Massachusetts b 8,000-10,000 Unknown Michigan 10,000 60,000 Over

_____ Minnesota 8,000 18,000 Over Mississippi 250,000 >350,000 Over Missouri 200,000 350,000-400,000 Over Montana b No estimate Unknown Nebraska 50 30,200 Over Nevada 300 900 Over New Hampshire 7,000 2,500 Below New Jersey 5,000 5,000-5,500 Even New Mexico b 30,000 Unknown New York 50,000 >65,000 Over North Carolina 12,000 20,000 Over North Dakota 6,000 14,000 Over Ohio 7,500 32,000 Over Oklahoma b 66,050 Unknown Oregon 1,000 No estimate Unknown Pennsylvania 120,000 160,000-175,000 Over Rhode Island b 500-600 Unknown South Carolina 35,000 70,000-80,000 Over South Dakota 16,500 30,000 Over Tennessee 24,000 60,000 Over Texas 580,000 582,000 Over Utah 1,000


Table 4. Individual state wild turkey population estimates between 1986 and 1989 with significant changes in populations indicated.

State

Alabama Arizona Arkansas california Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Totalsc

1986 estimatea

350,000 14,000

75,000-100,000 100,000

10,300-10,400 4,000

200 70,000

150,000 6,000

No estimate 15,000

3,000-5,000 >40,000

45,000 13,000 18,000

700 5,000-6,000

5,000 13,000-15,000

4,000-5,000 >350,000

200,000 No estimate

25,000 200

1,500-2,000 >4,500 28,040

50,000-60,000 14,000 12,000

>15,000 90,000

No estimate 100,000-150,000

500-750 30,000 20,000 30,000

300,000-500,000 350,000 >50 Gould's

100,000 100,400 < 1,500 Rio Grande

6,000 600

100,000 325,000

No estimate 3,400

35,000 30,000

>100,000 No estimate

>20,000 35,000

500-700 10,000

8,000-10,000 60,000 18,000

>350,000 350,000-400,000

No estimate 30,200

900 2,500

5,000-5,500 30,000

>65,000 20,000 14,000 32,000

66,035-66,050 No estimate

160,000-175,000 500-600

70,000-80,000 30,000 60,000

582,012 5,000 80,000 60,000

15,150-20,150

3,420, 747-3,506,562

Change

Stable Stableb Up25,000 Up400 Stableb Up2,000 Up400 Up30,000 Up 175,000 Unknown Unknown Up20,000 Up 25,000-27,000 Up60,000 Unknown Up7,000 Up 17,000 Stable Up 4,000-5,000 Up 3,000-5,000 Up 45,000-47,000 Up 13,000-14,000 Stable Up 150,000-200,000 Stable Up5,200 Up700 Up 500-1,000 Up 500-1,000 Up 1,960 Up 5,000-15,000 Up6,000 Up2,000 Up 16,200 Down 23,965-23,950 Stable Up 25,000-60,000 Stable-down 150 Up 40,000-50,000 Up 10,000 Up30,000 Up 82,012-282,012 Up 1,000 Stable Down 113,000 Up >3,000 Up30,000 Up45,000 Up 5,150-10,150

aFigures based on estimates in Kennamer (1986). bFigures do not reflect population changes for the Merriam's subspecies for which no 1989 estimates were given. cFigures do not reflect any Canadian province turkey populations.

7

QC

Table 5. Methods used by state agency wild turkey project leaders to estimate wild turkey populations.

State

Alabama

Arizona Arkansas

California Colorado Connecticut

Delaware

Florida Georgia Hawati Idaho Illinois

Indiana Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan Minnesota

Mississif?pi Missoun Montana Nebraska

Nevada New Hampshire

New Jersey New Mexico New York

Population estimation methods

Mail survey, brood count survey, county by county visual estimate by biologists.

No standardtzcd census in usc. Spring harvest and summer brood survey,

stocking evaluations. Local esttmations based on occupied range. None. Public sighting reports, estimates from harvest and

survey data. Spring gobbler surveys, general observations by division

personnel and public. EXtrapolation from harvest. Hunter success, brood counts, field personnel estimates. None. None. Landowner brood survey, hunter success rates, sightings by

successful deer hunters during gun season, field personnel estimates.

Gobbling counts, hunter success, observation reports. Winter track counts on selected areas, winter

concentrations, hunter success, brood counts, field personnel estimates, bag and tag returns.

Trend indicator--archery deer hunter survey, rural mail carriers, harvest, turkey hunter report.

Brood survey, harvest data. Field personnel estimates. None at present. Gobbler counts, spring; brood observations, summer;

and track counts, winter. No census methods employed--population estimate is

subjective based on extent of occupied range. Actual winter count and estimated reproductton. Deer hunter survey, landowner post card survey,

registration stattons, department sightings, etc. Not available. Harvest data, hunter success, summer brood survey. Monitor individual winter flocks, spring aerial surveys. Summer brood routes (production ind1ces);

winter flock counts. Winter flock count and summer/fall counts. Sightings from landowners and hunters;

observation/recording of fall/winter flocks; a sample of summer brood production.

Summer brood survey. Brood counts, field personnel observations, hunter success. No census conducted. (Population estimates derived

from known densities in research and other areas extrapolated by total amount of woodland in state.)

State

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia Wisconsin

Wyoming

Canada

Alberta Manitoba

Ontario

Population estimation methods

Brood counts, field personnel estimates, winter concentrations, landowner estimates, hunter estimates, bag and tag returns, hunter succ~.--ss, statewide observations, 5-year range and density mapping, mail surveys, gobbling counts.

Spring gobbling census; turkey observation reports from cooperators; snow track counts for deer and turkey; analysis of harvest data.

Summer brood survey and winter flock count. Random observation, hunter reports and reports from

other agency personnel, winter concentrations, average complete brood size.

Brood counts, fall baiting census, winter track count, reported harvest and small game take harvest survey.

Field observations, winter concentrations, brood counts. Brood counts, field personnel estimates, landowner

estimates, bag and tag returns. Harvest survey--mandatory check station and tagging;

summer brood survey. Rio Grande-hen/poult count, roadside count, winter roost

count and gobl:ilcr count; eastern-landowner/sportsmen observation cards, rural route post-card survey.

Brood counts, field personnel estimates, hunter estimates, hunter success.

Field personnel estimates, bag and tag returns, wing collections.

Mandatory check stations provide harvest data that arc used as mdex to population.

Gobbling routes, brood surveys, sight frequency, lando:-vner/public contacts, hunter reports, qucsttonnatres.

Harvest trends, brood counts, wingtip data, mast survey. Population, density and distribution estimation based upon

harvest registration data together with assumed 10% spring population exploitatiOn rate of zones open to hunting; deer hunter survey, new release area observations.

Gobbling routes, brood surveys, sight frequency, lando:-vner/public contacts, hunter reports, quest1onna1res.

Landowner survey and public sighting report. Total count by volunteer members of Wild Gobblers

Association of Manitoba. Observation cards, aerial surveys, indirect indices.

~ @ it ~· ~ i' C'l s: ;:ro

~ !:)•

~ -~ IS: i? f ~ .§ $;

~·

Hunting

Forty-seven states had spring turkey hunting seasons in 1990; exceptions were Delaware and Nevada. Twenty years ago Mosby (1973) predicted, "... it is entirely possible that a huntable population may be established in every state of the Union, except Alaska." That prediction will come true in 1991.

Delaware plans to open spring gobbler season in 1991, and Nevada has scheduled its Rio Grande (M. g. intermedia) population for a limited permit hunt in 1991. If these events occur, all 49 states with wild turkey populations would have a spring season in 1991 compared with 20 states with spring seasons in 1959. Correspondingly, turkey hunter numbers have increased for both spring and fall seasons from 1987 to 1989. All but 6 states indicate an upward or at least stable trend in the number of turkey hunters (Table 6).

According to state records, over 300,000 wild turkeys were harvested in the most recent spring and about 200,000 birds were taken in the latest fall season. By comparison, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Big-Game Inventory conducted in 1952 (Mosby 1973) showed an annual harvest of just over 47,000 birds. By 1968 that figure had increased to over 128,000 birds compared with over 500,000 birds taken annually by 1989. Harvest data are reported in the majority of states through mail surveys (26 states) and check stations (27 states) (Table 7).

Restoration

Most restocking of the wild turkey should be completed by 2000. Restocking programs are complete in 12 states, and 16 states should have their restocking complete by 1995. Other states have made no projections as to completion dates at this time (Table 8).

9


DISCUSSION

The wild turkey has made a comeback and shown wildlife managers and researchers it is adaptable and can be restocked to its original range and introduced to suitable habitat outside its former range.

But how far can the wild turkey spread into the snow belt? How do silviculture practices affect the wild turkey? Is there a risk for a spread of disease from the domestic poultry industry litter? Can disease testing be simplified? How do logging and wildfires affect turkey populations? What kind of hunting opportunities exist considering turkey population dynamics, hunter satisfaction, and landowner tolerances? The NWTF, in cooperation with state agencies and individuals, is funding studies to answer these and other questions. Even though populations have exceeded expectations, there are still aspects of wild turkey ecology and population dynamics that are poorly understood. The challenge of the 1990s will be to complete the restoration of wild turkeys into all suitable habitats and to manage those populations to their potential.

LITERATURE CITED

Bailey, R.W. 1980. The wild turkey status and outlook in 1979. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 4:1-9.

Kennamer, J.E., ed. 1986. Guide to the American wild turkey. National Wild Turkey Federation, Edgefield, S.C. 189pp.

Mosby, H.S. 1959. General status of the wild turkey and its management in the United States. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 1:1-11.

__ . 1973. The changed status of the wild turkey over the past three decades. Pages 71-76 in G.C. Sanderson and H.C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: current problems and programs. Univ. Missouri Press, Columbia.

__ . 1975. The status of the wild turkey in 1974. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:22-26.


Table 6. Total number (reported) of wild turkey hunters by state for spring and fall seasons between 1987 and 1989, as well as the current trend in hunter numbers.

Statea S.Qring Fall Current trend

Alabama 38,521 9,312 Down Arizona 3,683 10,425 Up Arkansas 50,000 15,000 Up California 22,840 spring and fall combined Up31% Colorado 4,500-6,000 1,500-2,000 Stable Connecticut 2,575 1,380b Up Florida Unknown Unknown Unknown Georgia 65,000 No season Up Hawaii No season Unknown Unknown Idaho 4,200 No season Up Illinois 13,848 4,700 Up lndianac 6,000 No season Unknown Iowa 17,904 8,876 Up Kansas 13,581 2,037 Up Kentucky 7,000 500 Up Louisiana 16,000 No season Up Maine 500max No season Up Maryland 12,400 10,400 Up Massachusetts 12,453 No season Up Michigan 30,000 quota 5,900quota Up Minnesotac 3,821 permits No season Up Mississippi Unknown Unknown Up Missouri 92,914 -50,000 Down Montana 2,000 5,000 Up Nebraska 8,206 7,066 Up New Hampshire 1,200 300b Up New Jersey 3,700 No season Up New Mexico 6,200 2,970 Up New York 58,495 47,207 Up North Carolina 20,000 No season Up North Dakotac 753 5,098 Up Ohio 24,740 No season Up Oklahoma 19,729 13,821 Stable Oregon 2,623 No season Down Pennsylvania 206,000 282,000 Down Rhode Island 300max No season Down South Carolina 35,591 10,235 Up South Dakota 5,500 6,500 Up Tennessee 27,000 8,000 Up Texas 86,228 124,206 Up Utah 450 No season Up Vermont 5,000 8,000 Up Virginia 61,428 113,461 Down Washington 800 spring and fall combined Up West Virginia 50,000 49,000 Up Wisconsin 33,000 7,260 Up Wyoming 3,587 1,483 Up

Totals 1,065,450-1,066,950 698,576-699,076

a Delaware and Nevada currently have no turkey season. Delaware plans to open a spring season in 1991; Nevada hopes to have a season for Rio Grande turkey in 1991.

bRepresents seasons restricted to archery hunting. cHunting open to residents only during all or part of reporting period.

10


Table 7. Fall and spring wild turkey harvests by state, 1987-89.

Statea Fall Year Spring Year Method of determination

Alabama 6,972 1988 43,718 1989 Check stations, mail survey Arizona 1,462 1988 618 1989 Mail survey Arkansas 1,184 1989 8,283 1989 Check stations, tags California 8,760 1988 combined 1988 Mail survey Colorado 355 1988 603 1989 Mail survey Connecticut 7b 1989 459 1989 Mail survey Florida 22,375 1989 16,000+ 1988 Check stations on some wildlife management

areas, statewide hunter survey Georgia NA 25,000 ? Check stations, mail survey Hawaii Unknown Unknown Check stations Idaho NA 228 1989 Random phone survey of tag holders Illinois 728 1989 2,381 1989 Check stations Indiana NA 1,359 1989 Check stations, mail survey Iowa 4,427 1988 6,796 1989 Mail survey Kansas 814 1988 4,898 1989 Mail survey Kentucky 20b 1989 1,000 1989 Check stations, tags Louisiana NA 6,000 1989 Mail survey Maine NA 19 1989 Check stations Maryland 302 1989 962 1989 Tags Massachusetts NA 780 1989 Mandatory check stations Michigan 6,195 1989 837 1988 Check stations, mail survey Minnesota NA 930 1989 Check stations Mississippi 965 1987 59,241 1987 Mail survey Missouri 21,885 1989 35,618 1989 Check stations, transport tags Montana 1,500 1989 500 1989 Mail survey Nebraska 4,000 1989 4,270 1989 Mail survey with wing New Hampshire 11b 1989 142 1989 Tags, check stations New Jersey NA 445 1989 Check stations New Mexico 1,392 1988 2,122 1988 Mail survey New York 6,891 1988 13,681 1989 Tags-reported take, mail survey w/leg (fall only) North Carolina NA 1,274 1989 Tags North Dakota 3,607 1988 502 1989 Check stations, mail survey w/wing Ohio NA 3,171 1989 Check stations Oklahoma 3,339 1988 7,953 1988 Check stations for eastern turkey

counties, phone survey statewide Oregon NA 313 1989 Mail survey, phone follow-up Pennsylvania 40,000 average 17,500 average Mandatory harvest report Rhode Island NA 9 1989 Check stations South Carolina 792 1988 7,651 1989 Check stations, tags, mail survey South Dakota 4,000 1988 3,000 1988 Mail survey, Hunter Report Card Tennessee 41b 1989 2,770 1989 Check stations, tags Texas 38,710 1988 52,935 1988 Mail survey Utah NA 66 1988 Mail survey Vermont 700-1,000 1988 700-800 1989 Check stations, mandatory reporting Virginia 10,623 1989 7,411 1989 Check stations, tags w/wing mandatory Washington 4 1989 61 1989 Check stations, tags, mail survey,

mandatory report West Virginia 2,939 1988 7,207 1989 Check stations, mail survey w/wing,

NWTF & Wildl. Resour. Div. Gobbler Survey Wisconsin 1,570 1989 4,406 1989 Mandatory registration in

check station, mail survey Wyoming 1,045 1988 1,108 1988 Mail survey with leg

Total harvest 193,235-193,535 356,807-361,907

a Delaware will open its first spring season in 1991; Nevada hopes to open a limited Rio Grande season in 1991. b Archery only harvest.

11

Table 8. Summary of the beginning dates of state wild turkey restoration programs, completion dates or expected completion dates. ;:p ~

State Year begun Year ended Expected end State Year begun Year ended Expected end it ~·

Alabama 1942 Soon New York 1959 1986 ~ Arizona Early 1940s 1995 North Carolina 1950s 1995 ~ Arkansas 1930sa Unknown North Dakota 1950s Not determined Vl 1950 Not determined Ohio 1952 Not determined s: California 1908 Not determined Oklahoma: Eastern 19128 1963 ;:::-

Colorado 1980 1991 Rio Grande 1948 Not determined ~ Connecticut 1975 1987 Eastern 1971 Not detern1ined s· Delaware 1984 1995 Oregon: Merriam's 1960s Not determined ~ Florida 1942 1970 Rio Grande 1984 Not determined -Georgia 1954a 1964 Pennsylvania 1956a 1985 ~ 1972 1990-1991 Rhode Island 1980 Not determined Hawaii Early 1960s 1960s South Carolina 1951 1958 i;i Idaho 1925 1946 1976 1995 t 1952 Not determined South Dakota 1948 Not determined Illinois 1959 1995 Tennessee 1951 Not determined ~ Indiana 1956 1994 Texas: Rio Grande 1924 1950 j Iowa 1965 1990 Eastern 1941a 1978

.., .... Kansas 1962 1995 Eastern 1959 1976 ~· N Kentucky 1978 1995 Florida 1959 1964

Louisiana 1962 1995 Hybrids 1965 1978 Maine 1977 1992 Eastern 1979 Not determined Maryland 1966 1991 Utah 1925 Unknown Massachusetts 1972 1992 1936a 1941 Michigan 1954 1998 1952 Not determined Minnesota 1960s Not determined Vermont 1973 1984 Mississippi 1954 1994 Virginia 1929 1988 Missouri 1953 1979 Washington 1913a Unknown Montana 1954 Almost complete Merriam's 1960 1988 Nebraska 1959 1983 Rio Grande, Eastern 1984 Not determined Nevada 1960 1963 West Virginia 1950 1989

1986 1992 Wisconsin 1954a 1957 New Hampshire 1969 1995 1976 1993 New Jersey 1977 1990 Wyoming 1935 1984 New Mexico 1930 Not determined

aRepresents early restoration efforts using game.farm birds.

WILD TURKEY NESTING ECOLOGY ON THE FRANCIS MARION NATIONAL FOREST

HUGH R. STILL, JR., South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department, 1638 Sequoya Way, Seneca, SC 29678

DAVID P. BAUMANN, JR., South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department, P. 0. Drawer 190, Bonneau, SC 29431

Abstract: A nesting ecology study was conducted during 1981-84 on a well-established population of eastern wild turkers (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) on a section of the Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina. Seasonal surveys indicated population densities and reproduction were declining in the Francis Marion while increasing elsewhere in the state. We sought to determine the relationship between nest site selection and timber types and stand characteristics. Fifty-five hens were trapped, equipped with telemetry packages, and released on site. Movements were monitored to determine nesting activity. Forest types, stand age, years since last prescribed burn, nesting success, and distance of nests to various type U.S. Forest Service roads were determined. Turkeys preferred to nest in young (


wateroak-willow oak (Liquidambar styraciflua-Quercus nigra-Q. phellos, 141 ha, 6.0% ), sweet bay-water tupelo-red maple (Magnolia virginiana-N. aquatica-Acer mbmm, 816 ha, 4.3% ), other hardwoods (primarily oaks, 526 ha, 2.7%), regenerated areas (1,261 ha, 6.7%), wildlife openings (68 ha, 0.4%) and other (primarily marsh, 948 ha, 5.0% ).

A high percentage ( 49%) of the older timber ( > 70 years old) was composed of the bald cypress-water tupelo forest type, which was often flooded, and made up 13% of the study area. Silvicultural practices for pine stands included clearcutting and planting, or seed-tree cutting with natural regeneration. Natural regeneration of hardwood sites occurred after clearcutting. Prescribed burning was common in the upland pine types.

A small tidal stream ran through the middle of the study area and many dikes and ditches associated with early rice culture were present.

The study area has a number of Forest Service roads including approximately 61 km of rock-surfaced roads, 42 km of logging roads, 27 km of improved ditched dirt roads, and 15 km of paved roads. Many of the logging roads provide access to the 142 ( 68 ha) wildlife openings on the area.

METHODS

We used rocket-projected netting fired over sites prebaited with whole corn to capture hens during January, February, and early March 1981-84 (Austin 1965, Dill 1969). Captured hens were weighed, aged, banded, and fitted with a solar- or battery-powered transmitter. Transmitters were attached to a harness made of nylon-covered rubber tubing. A motion-sensing feature of the transmitters allowed interpretation of turkey activity.

After release hens were located > 3 days/week at various hours until 1 August of each year. Locations were determined as described by Cochran and Lord (1963). Dates were recorded when the activity sensor indicated periods of inactivity and when radio locations became clustered signifying nesting.

Nest sites were located initially by flushing hens from nests after they had been incubating continuously for at least 15 days. When it became apparent that birds abandoned their nests after being flushed, we marked the general location of the nest with flagging and

14

located it after the eggs hatched or the hen abandoned the nest.

After eggs hatched, we recorded clutch size; number of eggs hatched; distance to nearest road, wildlife opening, ditch or skid trail; last controlled burn; and overstory vegetation characteristics including basal area (BA). Basal area was determined using a BA factor 10 prism. With the nest as the center point, a 50-m plot was surveyed around the nest to determine forest cover type. Forest Service cover type guidelines were used to determine the forest type of the area surrounding each nest and for each timber stand on the area. Stands in which > 70% of the dominant and codominant trees were either pine or hardwoods were classified as a pure stand. Stands in which 51-69% of the trees in the dominant and codominant positions were either hardwoods or pines were classified as mixed stands.

Preference for forest cover type and stand age class was analyzed using methods derived by Neu et al. (1974). If a hen's activity monitor failed to operate over a period of 3 days, she was located and, if dead, examined for causes of death.

RESULTS

Nesting Habitat

We located 28 nests of radio-equipped hens, and Forest Service personnel or hunters found 9 nests. Of the 37 nests, 15 ( 40%) were in mixed stands, 11 (30%) in pine stands, and 10 (27%) in seed-tree cuts or in clearcuts < 10 years old. One nest was found in a 13-year-old pine stand that had been destroyed by wildfire. Nests were often in small patches of pine-hardwood within larger stands that were typed as pine, or near stand edges where pine-hardwood was more prevalent. Basal area for pine-hardwood and pine species surrounding nest sites averaged 17.1 and 22.6 m2fha, respectively.

Forest types were not used for nesting in proportion to their availability (P < 0.10) (Table 1 ). Hens preferred regenerating stands (

Turkey Nesting Ecology in South Carolina • StiU and Baumann

property where all stand-age data were available. Stands in the 0- to 10-year age class were preferred for nesting while stands > 70 years were avoided. Hens selected stands in other age classes randomly with no statistical indication of preference or avoidance.

Sixteen nests ( 43%) were closer to a closed road than to any other type of road or opening, while 13 were closer to an open road. Eight nests were located closer to a wildlife opening than to a road. There was a higher nesting frequency along roads closed to vehicular traffic than along roads that were open (X2 = 6.635, 1 df, P < 0.01) (Table 2). Five nests were within 20 m of a closed road and 11 were within 50 m. Three nests were within 50 m of an open road. Vehicular traffic on closed roads was restricted to maintenance of roads or openings and other forestry and wildlife management activities.

Seven nests (19%) were within 10 m of a fire line or skid trail. All rock, improved-dirt, and paved roads on the area were open during the study.

Prescribed burning was a management practice commonly used by the Forest Service on the study area. Burning history was evaluated for 29 nest sites for which burning data were available. Eleven nests (38%) were in stands that had been burned within the previous 12 months (Fig. 1 ). These nests were generally in small pockets excluded from the burn because of dampness or topography. Nine nests (31%) were found in areas that had been burned 1-2 years before nest initiation. Forest Service personnel burned an average of 1,347 ha on the study area during 1977-83 (range 557-2,187 ha).

Table 1. Use and availability of forest cover types and stand age classes by nesting wild turkey hens on the Francis Marion National Forest, S. C., 1981-84.

Forest characteristic Total area (ha)a % availabili!Y %use PreferenceEi

Forest type Pine 10,919 57.7 29.7 Hardwood 4,979 26.3 0.0 Regeneration < 10 years old 1,261 6.6 27.0 + Mixed 765 4.0 40.5 + Other 1,016 5.4 2.8 ±

Age class, years 0-10 1,026 10.7 28.6 +

11-30 1,341 14.0 14.2 ± 31-50 1,812 18.9 8.6 ± 51-70 3,039 31.7 40.0 ±

>70 2,363 24.7 8.6

aThirty-five of the nests were on Forest Service property where all ages were known. All nests were included in the forest type analysis.

bsignificant avoidance (-), preferrence ( + ), and randomness ( ±) (P ~ 0.10).

Table 2. Chi-square test of turkey nests in relation to roads on the Francis Marion National Forest, S.C., 1981-84.

Road type

Open (103.08 km) Closed (41.52 km) Total

ax2 = 6.635; 1 df;P < O.ol.

Observed

13 16 29

15

Expected

20.6 8.4

29.0

Contribution to XZ

2.80 6.88 9.68a


12~----------------------------,

10

..--. 8 c

2 6 (/) (!)

z 4

2

0-1 1.1~ ~1~ a1~ ~1~ >5

Last Burn (years)

25~--------------------------,

"0 20 Q) c ,._ :::J

CIJ 15 ........... 0 0

X

c

10

5

0 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Year

Fig. 1. Number of turkey nests by year since last prescribed burn, and area (ha) burned 1977-83 on the Francis Marion National Forest, S.C.

Nest Success

During 1982, 6 of 11 adult hens nested, and 2 hens renested. In 1983, 6 of 11 adult hens nested, 1 hen renested; and in 1984, 11 of 14 adult hens nested and 1 hen renested. Only 4 of 17 hens (23%) renested after their nests were destroyed or abandoned. Five radio-equipped hens were monitored for 2 or more seasons. The 1981 nesting data were not included in these calculations because information was not available through the entire nesting season. The nesting rate for adult hens nesting at least once ranged from 54.5% to 78.6% and averaged 63.8%. None of the 12 juvenile hens nested during the study.

16

------------·----··-L

During 1982-84 instrumented adult hens produced a total of 27 nests. Seven nests were abandoned due to human disturbance from project activities. Of the 20 remaining nests, 11 (55%) resulted in poults, 6 (30%) were destroyed by predators (1 nesting hen was killed by a bobcat [Lynx mfu.s]), 2 (10%) were flooded, and 1 (5%) was abandoned for unknown reasons. Only 1 (11%) hen returned to her nest after being flushed by humans. She was only 2 days from hatching and successfully hatched her brood.

Clutch size averaged 10.03 eggs; 87% of the eggs in successful nests hatched. Four of the 11 (36%) successful nests hatched between 1 June and 15 June; 2 nests (18%) hatched during each of the following periods: 16-31 May, 16-30 June, and 1-15 July. One nest (9%) hatched between 1 May and 15 May. Renesting attempts ( 4) were unsuccessful. Two second nests were depredated, 1 was flooded, and 1 was abandoned due to human disturbance.

DISCUSSION

We found that only 63.8% of the adult hens attempted to nest and observed no nesting by juvenile hens. In Florida, 64.1% of adult hens and 51.5% of juvenile hens were known to nest (Williams et al. 1971). Hillestad (1973) observed that 4 of 10 juvenile hens nested during his Alabama study.

Nesting hens would not tolerate human disturbance; only 1 (11%) of 8 hens returned to her nest after being flushed. Williams et al. (1971) reported that 7 of 11 hens (64%) abandoned their nests after being flushed from their nests by investigators. Bidwell et al. (1985) reported that human disturbance caused most nest losses (61 %, 8 of 13) in his Oklahoma study. As turkey hunters and other resource users increase on the Francis Marion National Forest, the disturbance and abandonment of nests could significantly affect turkey production.

Second nesting attempts on the Francis Marion were uncommon; only 23% of the adult hens renested. In Florida, 14.3% of juvenile hens and 29.4% of adult hens renested after the loss of the first nest (Williams et al. 1971 ).

Study findings clearly indicated that Francis Marion turkeys would benefit from a mixed stand management strategy. Forty percent of the nests were found in areas where the

regenerated by clearcutting or shelterwood cutting. Pine and hardwood regeneration areas were well distributed throughout the area and averaged 16.4 ha and 6.3 ha, respectively. In mature pine stands, prescribed burning and commercial thinning were conducted on 6-year and 10-year rotations, respectively.

METHODS

We captured turkeys during January-March and July-August 1984-88, by cannon-netting (Bailey 1976) or drugging with alpha-chloralose (Williams 1966). Hens were aged (Larson and Taber 1980), weighed, and marked with numbered aluminum leg bands and black patagial wing tags (Knowlton et al. 1964). Radio transmitters (Wildlife Materials, Inc., Carbondale, TIL) were placed "backpack" style on captured hens (Everett et al. 1978). Hens were released at the capture site.

Telemetry readings were taken daily during the nesting season (1 Mar-30 Jun) to determine date of initial incubation. Incubation was assumed when a hen was at the same location for 2 consecutive days. After about 14 days of incubation, we recorded compass bearings toward the nest at several reference points, approximately 50 m from the nest, to locate the nest site after hatching or abandonment.

Nest Habitat Preference and Success Rates

Nest habitat preferences were determined by comparing the nest site habitat type with available habitat using a 2-sample test for equality of percentages (Leopold 1986). Available habitat for nesting was determined by calculating the area of each habitat type within a hen's prenesting home range. Habitat types were classified as: ( 1) mature pine: stands > 10 years old and dominated by pine species, (2) bottomland hardwoods: stands > 10 years old and dominated by hardwood species, (3) regeneration areas: stands < 10 years old, and ( 4) fields. We determined prenesting home ranges by connecting the outer points of plotted telemetry locations from 1 March to the date of incubation initiation on a geoinformation system prepared for TWMA (Songer 1987). We combined the area of each habitat type within the prenesting home range for each hen to determine the total available habitat for nesting hens.

19

Turkey Nesting Success • Seiss et aL

Habitat preferences were determined for: (1) habitat type, (2) period of time since prescribed burning within pine stands, (3) regeneration area type (hardwood, pine), and ( 4) age of regeneration area. Nest success rates were determined by dividing the number of successful nests by total nests for each habitat type. Success rates were determined for forested (mature pine and bottomland hardwoods) and nonforested (regeneration areas and fields) habitats.

Nest Site Characteristics

We measured 20 habitat characteristics at each nest. A 1-m2 hoop was centered 46 em (approximate height of a nesting hen) above the nest to estimate the percentage of vegetative cover directly over the nesting hen. A 1.8-m tall density board was placed 4.6 m away from the nest at the 4 cardinal directions to estimate lateral screening cover. We looked at the board from 46 em above the nest and estimated the percentage of each 0.3-m level of the board that was obscured by vegetation. Vegetative life forms at the nest site (within the 1-m2 hoop) were classified as brush, vine, grass, or forb. Average dbh for trees > 10.2 em dbh and percent canopy cover were estimated for a 10.7-m diameter plot surrounding the nest site. Basal area was calculated with a 10-factor prism. Nesting attempt, nest fate, edge type, number of edges, distance to closest edge, and number of habitat types seen from the nest site were recorded. We classified edges as natural (created by a change in habitats) or man-made (created by fire lane, logging trail, or road). Macro-habitat was defined as forested (mature pine and bottomland hardwoods) or non-forested (regeneration areas and fields).

Significance tests compared mean values of all site characteristics for successful and unsuccessful nests. Linear discriminant analysis was performed to identify variables most important to nest success. Analyses were conducted using SPSS-PC+ (SPSS, Inc. 1988) at P = 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS

We located 44 nests from transmitter-equipped hens during 1984-88. Six nests, located on private land off the study area, were excluded from the habitat preference analysis


(Table 1 ). Two nests that were abandoned after we flushed the hen were excluded from the analyses of success rates (Table 4) and nest site characteristics (Table 5). Data were combined for all years.

Nest Habitat Preference and Success Rates

Mature pine and bottomland hardwood stands comprised 43.6% and 43.4% of available prenesting habitat, respectively (Table 1 ). Mature pine stands contained the most nests (18) and seemed to be used according to availability (P = 0.739). Regeneration areas made up only 12.5% of available habitat but contained 14 (36.8%) nests, indicating preference (P = 0.014). Bottomland hardwood stands were avoided by nesting hens (P = 0.001 ), and fields apparently were used in proportion to their availability (P = 0.226).

Preference/avoidance was not detected (P > 0.3) for nesting use of pine stands based on the time since the last prescribed bum (Table 2). At least 1 nest was located in stands burned the same year as nesting through stands burned up to 6 years prior to nesting.

Hens that nested in regeneration areas preferred 2-year-old stands (P = 0.035) and avoided stands >4 years old (P = 0.048) (Table 3). No preference/avoidance was detected (P = 0.539) for regeneration type (hardwood vs. pine).

Nest sites located in bottomland hardwood stands had the greatest success rate (75.0% ), but the rate was based on a sample of 4 nests (Table 4). Mature pine stands contained 18 nests and had a 66.7% success rate. Nest success in pine and hardwood regeneration

areas was 45.4% and 0.0%, respectively. All nests located in fields (n = 3) were unsuccessful. Combined nest success in forested habitats ( 68.2%) was significantly greater (P = 0.049) than in nonforested areas (25.0% ). Nest success rates should only be used for comparison between habitat types. Actual nesting success would be lower than rates shown because nests destroyed or abandoned early during incubation could not be located and were excluded from the analysis.

Nest Site Characteristics

We compared 22 unsuccessful nests with 20 successful nests (Table 5). Successful nests had less lateral screening cover in the 0.3- to 0.6-m zone, were closer to roads, and were located near more edges (P < 0.05). Successful nests were usually in forested habitats, and unsuccessful nests were usually in nonforested habitats (P < 0.05).

Linear discriminant analysis selected distance to edge, edge type, presence of forbs at the nest, and presence of grasses at the nest as variables that predicted nest outcome. These variables correctly classified 76% of the nests. Type of edge (r = 0. 739) and distance to edge (r = 0.418) had the highest correlations with the discriminant function and were the most important variables in predicting nest outcome. Nests were more successful as distance to edge decreased and when located near a man-made edge instead of a natural edge. Presence of forbs (r = 0.29) and grasses (r = 0.03) at the nest site were included in the function to allow the analysis to correctly predict the success of nests located in bottomland hardwoods.

Table 1. Habitat use by nesting transmitter-equipped wild turkey hens, Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mississippi, 1984-88.

Area Nests observed Habitat type ha % n % P-value

Pine 5,259 43.6 18 47.4 0.739 Hardwoods 5,239 43.4 4 10.5 0.001 * Regeneration 1,507 12.5 14 36.8 0.014* Field 66 0.6 2 5.3 0.226 Total 12,071 38

• Significant (P ~ 0.05).

20


Table 2. Habitat use of pine stands according to time since prescribed burning for nesting transmitter-equipped wild turkey hens, Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mississippi, 1984-88.

Area Nests observed Time (years) ha % n % P-value*

0 783 15.6 2 11.1 0.691 1 526 10.5 1 5.6 0.589 2 467 9.3 2 11.1 0.858 3 183 3.6 2 11.1 0.389 4 818 16.3 1 5.6 0.304 5 784 15.7 4 22.2 0.619 6+ 1,444 28.9 6 33.3 0.776

Total 5,005 18

* None were significantly different from expected.

Table 3. Habitat use of regeneration areas by nesting transmitter-equipped wild turkey hens, Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mississippi, 1984-88.

Area Nests observed Age (years) ha % n % P-value

Not planted 231 15.3 1 7.1 0.491 0 248 16.4 1 7.1 0.445 1 191 12.7 3 21.4 0.540 2 61 4.0 5 35.7 0.035* 3 228 15.1 3 21.4 0.666 4 177 11.7 1 7.1 0.667 5+ 372 24.6 0 0.0 0.048*

Total 1,507 14

* Significant (P .!S_ 0.05).

Table 4. Nesting success by habitat type for transmitter-equipped wild turkey hens, Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mississippi, 1984-88.

Nests Nest habitat n % successful

Bottomland hardwoods 4 75.0 Pine 18 66.7 Pine regeneration 11 45.4 Hardwood regeneration 6 0.0 Fields 3 0.0 Total 42 47.6 Forested 22 68.2 Nonforested 20 25.0 Total 42 47.6

21


Table 5. Site characteristics of successful and unsuccessful nests for transmitter-equipped wild turkey hens, Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mississippi, 1984-88.

Characteristics

Nesting attempta % overhead cover Density board(% coverage)

0.0-0.3 m 0.3-0.6m 0.6-0.9m 0.9-1.2 m 1.2-1.5 m 1.5-1.8 m

Distance to edge (m) Edge typeb Number of edges Basal area (m2Jha) Average dbh (em) % canopy cover Macro-habitat typec Number of habitat types Vegetational structure at nest sited

Brush Vine Grass Forb

aFirst attempt = 1, second attempt = 2. bNatural edge = 0, man-made edge = 1. cForested habitat = 0, nonforested = 1. d Absent (0) or present (1) at nest site. * Significant (P .:::_ 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Hens preferred to nest in regeneration areas and avoided bottomland hardwoods. Regeneration areas had an abundance of ground cover and a high density of woody vegetation. Understory vegetation provided the type, amount, and distribution of cover most suitable to nesting hens. Bottomland hardwood stands were frequently flooded causing an open understory with a low stratum of vegetation dominated by forbs and grasses. This forest type generally lacked the woody vegetation to provide suitable nesting cover. Mature pine stands contained the majority of nests and were used in proportion to their availability. Shrubs and vines dominated the understory of pine stands and provided patchy areas of cover used

22

Unsuccessful Successful nests (n=22) nests (n=20) P-value

1.2 1.1 0.54 61.2 60.6 0.95

94.6 87.8 0.09 85.2 71.8 0.05* 71.4 58.5 0.14 61.8 50.6 0.22 54.7 49.4 0.57 52.1 47.1 0.59 12.1 7.8 0.11 0.5 0.8 0.01* 1.7 2.2 0.03*

36.8 68.2 0.06 5.1 8.0 0.17

20.5 37.5 0.06 0.6 0.3 0.03* 2.0 1.8 0.43

1.0 1.0 0.95 0.5 0.6 0.36 0.1 0.2 0.90 0.0 0.2 0.26

by nesting hens. Fields comprised < 1% of available habitat, were used in proportion to their availability, and therefore were not an important nesting habitat. Other studies have shown nesting preferences for recently cut-over loblolly pine, shortleaf pine (P. echinata) and sweetgum (Hillestad 1973), forest openings (Porter 1978), powerline rights-of-way (Everett et al. 1981 ), fields (Speake et al. 1975), and 6-month- to 44-year-old pine plantations (Exum et al. 1987).

No preference/avoidance for nesting was detected for time since burning in mature pine stands. Stands generally burned unevenly leaving a patchy distribution of vegetation that provided suitable nest cover. Because no preference was detected, a shorter burning rotation may increase the quality of pine stands

as year-round turkey habitat without adversely affecting nest site selection. Stoddard (1963) thought nesting hens preferred brushy clumps in open woodlands that escaped fire for 2-5 years. Hens selected recently burned areas in Georgia (Hon et al. 1978) but preferred sites that had not been recently burned in Alabama (Exum et al. 1987).

Hens nesting in regeneration areas preferred 2-year-old stands and avoided stands >4 years old. Two-year-old stands provided excellent nesting cover while vegetation in stands >4 years old was apparently too dense for use by nesting hens. Delaying site prepar-ation for 1 or 2 years in pine regeneration areas may increase the number of years hens use these areas for nesting. Hens did not show a preference for regeneration area type (pine or hardwood). Although significance was not detected, hens used hardwood regeneration areas more than expected. Nesting in hardwood regeneration areas may have been influenced by their close proximity to bottomland hardwoods, which were determined to be the preferred brood habitat on TWMA (Phalen 1986). Delaying site preparation is not recommended for hardwood regeneration areas because of the low nest success in this habitat type.

Nests in forested habitats had significantly higher success rates than nests in nonforested habitats. High predator populations may have been responsible for the low nest success rate in nonforested habitats. Previous studies found that young pine plantations supported high populations of prey (Atkeson and Johnson 1979, Perkins and Hurst 1988) and predators (Baker and Brooks 1981). Nonforested habitats probably supported higher predator populations and were smaller in size than forested habitats. Therefore, a predator would have a greater probability of detecting a nest in nonforested habitats, resulting in lower success rates for this habitat type.

Nest sites were characterized by having an average of 60% overhead cover and 90% lateral screening cover at the 0.3- to 0.6-m height and gradually decreasing to 50% cover at the 1.6- to 1.8-m level. Hardwood reproduction, shrubs, and vines provided the vegetational structure that hens used for nesting cover. Nest sites were located an average of 10m from an edge. Edges were created by gravel roads, logging trails, firebreaks, and changes in habitats. Previous studies found similar nest site

23

-----------------------------


characteristics (Williams et al. 1968, Hon et al. 1978, Martin 1984, Lazarus and Porter 1985, Exum et al. 1987, Holbrook et al. 1987).

Successful nests had lower lateral screening cover at all height levels with significantly lower cover at 0.3- to 0.6-m level. This result was probably a function of macro-habitat type instead of an optimum amount of cover because successful nests were generally located in for-ested habitats, and these stands have less ground and understory cover than regeneration areas.

Edges appeared to influence nest outcome. Successful nests were generally located < 10 m from more than 1 man-made edge. Close proximity of edges may have provided hens with travel lanes to a variety of resources and decreased the time the hen was away from the nest. Limited time off the nest may reduce scent trails and decrease the chance of predation. Further research should be conducted to determine if creating edges in pine habitats would enhance productivity through increased nest success.

LITERATURE CITED

Atkeson, T.D., and AS. Johnson. 1979. Succession of small mammals on pine plantations in the Georgia Piedmont. Am. Midi. Nat. 101:385-392.

Bailey, R.W. 1976. Live-trapping wild turkeys in North Carolina. N.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm. Publ. Raleigh. 21pp.

Baker, J.A, and R.J. Brooks. 1981. Raptor and vole populations at an airport. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:390-3%.

Clark, J.R. 1980. The detection and mapping of land cover types significant to white-tailed deer management in Mississippi using landsat multi-spectral scanner data. M.S. Thesis. Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State. 99pp.

Everett, D.D., D.W. Speake, and W.K Maddox. 1981. Use of rights-of-way by nesting wild turkeys in north Alabama. Proc. Symp. on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management 2:1-6.

__ , ___, __ , and R.E. Hawkins. 1978. Multi-purpose radio transmitters for studying mortality, natality, and movement of eastern wild turkeys. Proc. Int. Symp. on Biotelemetry 4:155-158.

Exum, J. H., J. A McGlincy, D.W. Speake, J.L. Buckner, and F.M. Stanley. 1987. Ecology of the eastern wild turkey in an intensively managed pine forest in southern Alabama. Tall Timbers Res. Sta. Bull. 23, Tallahassee, Fla. 70pp.

Proceeding.v of the Sixth National Wild Turkey Symposium

Hillestad, H.O. 1973. Movements, behavior, and nesting ecology of the wild turkey in eastern Alabama. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 2:109-123.

Holbrook, H.T., M.R. Vaughan, and P.T. Bromley. 1987. Wild turkey habitat preferences and recruitment in intensively managed Piedmont forests. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:182-187.

Hon, T., D.P. Belcher, B. Mullis, and J.R. Monroe. 1978. Nesting, brood range, and reproductive success of an insular turkey population. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 32:137-149.

Knowlton, F.F., E.D. Michael, and W.C. Glazener. 1964. A marking technique for field recognition of individual turkeys and deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 28:167-170.

Larson, J.S., and R.D. Taber. 1980. Criteria of sex and age. Pages 190-197 in S.D. Schemnitz, ed. Wildlife management techniques manual. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C.

Lazarus, J.E., and W.F. Porter. 1985. Nest habitat selection by wild turkeys in Minnesota. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 5:67-81.

Leopold, B.D. 1986. BDLSTST: The statistical package for biological sciences. Ver. 2.03. Tucson, Ariz.

Markley, M.H. 1967. Limiting factors. Pages 199-243 in O.H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 589pp.

Martin, D.J. 1984. The influence of selected timber management practices on habitat use by wild turkeys in east Texas. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M Univ., College Station. 129pp.

Perkins, C.J., and G.A Hurst. 1988. Relative abundance of small mammals in young loblolly pine plantations. Proc. Bien. Southern Silvicultural Res. Conf. Gen. Tech. Rep. 50-74, Southern For. Exp. Sta. 5:589-591.

24

Pettry, D.E. 1977. Soil resource areas of Mississippi. Miss. Agric. and For. Exp. Sta. Inf. Sheet 1278. Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State. 4pp.

Phalen, P.S. 1986. Reproduction, brood habitat use, and movement of wild turkey hens in east-central Mississippi. M.S. Thesis. Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State. 63pp.

Porter, W.F. 1978. The ecology and behavior of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in southeastern Minnesota. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Minnesota, Minneapolis. 122pp.

Seiss, R.S. 1989. Reproductive parameters and survival rates of wild turkey hens in east-central Mississippi.. M.S. Thesis. Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State. 99pp.

Songer, E.F. 1987. Habitat quality modeling of wild turkey brood habitat including estimates of edge, juxtaposition, and interspersion. M.S. Thesis. Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State. 41 pp.

Speake, D.W., T.E. Lynch, W.J. Fleming, G.A Wright, and W.J. Hamrick. 1975. Habitat use and seasonal movements of wild turkeys in the Southeast. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:122-129.

SPSS, Inc. 1988. SPSS/PC+. Copyright 1988. SPSS, Inc. Chicago. Unpaged.

Stoddard, H.L., Sr. 1963. Maintenance and increase of the eastern wild turkey on private lands of the coastal plain of the deep south. Tall Timbers Res. Sta. Bull. 3, Tallahassee, Fla. 49pp.

Williams, L.E. 1966. capturing wild turkeys with alpha-chlorolose. J. Wildl. Manage. 30:50-58.

_, D.H. Austin, N.F. Eichholz, T.E. Peoples, and R.W. Phillips. 1968. A study of nesting turkeys in southern Florida. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 22:16-30.

-----~---------------------

CHRONOLOGY OF GOBBLING AND NESTING ACTIVITIES OF MERRIAM'S WILD TURKEYS

RICHARD W. HOFFMAN, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 317 W. Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526

Abstract: Gobbling activity of adult and subadult Merriam's wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) was studied in southcentral Colorado and northcentral New Mexico in 1986, 1988, and 1989. Gobbling was monitored in relation to time of day, roosting behavior, presence of hens, and timing of nesting events and spring hunting. Mean dates for onset of incubation were 14 May 1989, 18 May 1986, and 21 May 1988. Peak of incubation occurred between 16 and 25 May, after the spring hunting season. Gobbling was sporadic and differed among individuals. Adult males gobbled more (P = 0.007) in the morning (AM) than evening (PM), more (P = 0.003 for AM, P = 0.006 for PM) on than off the roost, more (P = 0.016) in the absence than presence of hens, and more during than before (P = 0.01) or after (P = 0.034) the hunting season. Two peaks of gobbling were identified. The second peak (11-20 May) approximated the peak of incubation. Subadult males seldom gobbled; 77% of all gobbling by subadults occurred in the absence of adult males. Data from this study support a late April opening date for the spring hunting season.

Management strategies for setting biologi-cally sound spring seasons for wild turkeys involve knowing when peaks of gobbling and onset of incubation occur (Bailey and Rinell 1967, Bevill 1975). Properly timed seasons afford maximum protection of hens and optimize opportunities for hunter success (Miller 1984). Few investigations of Merriam's wild turkeys have provided quantitative data on timing of gobbling (Scott and Boeker 1972) or nesting (Lockwood and Sutcliffe 1985) events. Consequently, seasons have been set more on tradition than biological evidence (Kennamer 1986).

In 1986, 1988, and 1989, I monitored gobbling and nesting activities of Merriam's turkeys in southcentral Colorado and north-central New Mexico. Gobbling was quantified in relation to age of bird, time of day, roosting behavior, presence or absence of hens, timing of incubation, and timing of the spring hunting season. My objectives were to identify peaks in gobbling activity, conditions influencing gob-bling, and duration of gobbling.

I wish to acknowledge the ARCO Coal Company, Vermejo Park Ranch, Hill Ranch, and Raton Ranch, and specifically J. Baker, J. Hardin, D. Hill, D. Berg, D. Romero, T. Romero, and L. Cusimano for granting access. R. Holder, J. Aragon, and T. Spezze provided trapping and other assistance, and B. Linkhart, R. Mueckler, and T. Abell participated directly

25

in data collection. I am grateful to R. Palone, supervisor of Trinidad State Recreation Area, for providing trailer space and use of shop and office facilities. This paper is a contribution of Colorado Division of Wildlife Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-152-R.

STUDY AREA

Trapping was confined to Longs Canyon and 2 tributary canyons, Sowbelly and Martinez, approximately 17 km southwest of Trinidad, Colorado in Las Animas County. From here, radio-marked birds ranged over 448 km2 of surrounding areas during the breeding season. This area was bounded by I-25 on the east, Lorencito Canyon on the west, Colorado Highway 12 on the north, and the Canadian River in New Mexico on the south.

This topographically diverse area varied in elevation from 1,800 to 2,600 m and was inter-sected by 4 large canyons > 30 km in length, each with numerous side canyons and adjacent smaller canyons. Major vegetation types includ-ed pinyon pine-juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus spp.), mountain shrub, and ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa). The mountain shrub type was dominated by Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), which extended into the pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine types. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and white fir (Abies concolor) occurred in association with ponderosa pine


primarily on north slopes. Over 95% of the area was privately owned. Human activity was minimal. Use of private lands was limited to cattle grazing, some logging, and recreation.

METHODS

Turkeys were baited with oat hay and corn, and livetrapped with drop nets or cannon nets during February and March 1986, 1988, and 1989. No birds were trapped in 1987. Captured birds were classified to age and sex (Hoffman 1962), and banded with serially numbered aluminum leg bands. Numbered and color-coded (by year) Allflex livestock eartags were attached to the patagium. Ages were recorded as subadult (8-1 0 months) or adult ( > 18 months). One hundred forty-seven birds (16 adult males, 10 subadult males, 101 adult females, 20 subadult females) were equipped with lithium battery powered transmitters (Models HLPB 2750 and 2120-LD, Wildlife Materials, Carbondale, Ill.) attached with a poncho collar (Amstrup 1980) or tail-clip (Bray and Corner 1972). The poncho radio package weighed

indices, the male was located on the roost the evening before. Males selected for a PM index were located at least 1 hour before sunset.

Gobbling data were totaled for each radio-marked male for each category of comparison (i.e., on and off the roost, hens present and hens absent, AM and PM, etc.) and converted to gobbles/hour. For example, if 200 gobbles (150 on and 50 off roost; 20 total gobbles during preseason) were recorded during 12 AM indices (720 min) on male A, 4 each during the preseason, season, and postseason totaling 252 minutes on and 468 minutes off the roost, then the preseason AM gobbling rate for male A was calculated as total gobbles recorded during the 4 preseason AM indices (20) divided by total minutes of observation (240) times 60 = 5 gobbles/hour. The on-roost AM gobbling rate was calculated as total gobbles on the roost (150) divided by total minutes of observation on the roost (252) times 60 = 36 gobbles/hour.

The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in gobbling on and off the roost, and in the presence or absence of hens. The same procedure was used to compare gobbling rates during the preseason, season, and postseason, and before, during, and after the peak period of incubation. Control of the overall error rate for these comparisons was maintained by use of the Bonferroni inequality. Gobbling of adults between years (1986 and 1989) was compared using the Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Nesting

Mean date for onset of incubation differed marginally (P = 0.103) among years, being earlier in 1989 (14 May, n = 12) than in 1986 (18 May, n = 14) and 1988 (21 May, n = 22). Earliest and latest dates for initiation of incubation of first nest attempts were 6 May and 8 June, respectively. Fifty-six percent (27/48) of the hens started incubation after the spring hunting season; another 35% (17 /48) started the last week of the hunting season. The peak period for onset of incubation was 16-25 May.

Gobbling

Adults.--I obtained 203 valid indices on 12 different males in 1986 (99 indices on 7 males)

27

Wild Turkey Gobbling and Nesting • Ho./frruln

and 1989 (104 indices on 5 males). Gobbling rates did not differ between years for AM (P = 0.687) or PM (P = 0.591) comparisons. Gobbling was first heard on 11 March and continued through 15 June when the gobbling indices were terminated. Radio-marked males were heard gobbling 2,830 times during 120 of 133 (90%) morning indices and 384 times during 43 of 70 ( 61%) evening indices.

On a daily basis, gobbling was extremely sporadic. Even during the peaks of gobbling, under ideal conditions, there were indices when no gobbling was heard. Some males gobbled consistently more than others. The typical pattern for an adult male was to gobble more (P = 0.007) in the AM than PM, more on than off the roost for both AM (P = 0.003) and PM (P = 0.006) comparisons, more (P = 0.016) in the absence than presence of hens, and more during than before (P = 0.01) or after (P = 0.034) the hunting season (Table 1 ). Gobbling did not dif-fer (P = 0.60) between preincubation and incubation periods, but occurred less frequently during postincubation than during either prein-cubation (P = 0.015) or incubation (P = 0.012).

Two distinct peaks of gobbling were evident in 1986 (Fig. 1 ). The peaks were less pronounced in 1989, although the second peak in 1989 occurred at the same time as in 1986. Both second peaks of gobbling approximated the peak of incubation and occurred after the hunting season.

Subadults. --I obtained 85 valid indices on 8 different subadult males in 1988. Subadults were first heard gobbling on 15 April and last heard on 3 June. Only 62 gobbles were recorded between 1 April and 15 June, including 60 in the morning and 2 in the evening. No gobbling was recorded during 37 of 50 (74%) morning and 33 of 35 (94%) evening indices. The number of AM gobbles per index (n = 13) when subadults did gobble ranged from 1 to 27 (median= 1 gobble/hr).

Subadults gobbled at a slightly higher (P = 0.076) rate on than off the roost (Table 1 ). Only 2 AM gobbles were heard during 16 indices when hens were absent and 58 during 34 indices when hens were present. Seventy-seven percent ( 46/60) of all AM gobbling occurred in the absence of adult males.

Subadults appeared to gobble more during incubation than preincubation (Table 1 ); however, because of variation in gobbling among individuals, the difference was not

Proceedin~ of the Sixth National Wild Turkey Symposium

50 PEAK ONSET

a: 40 I -en

UJ _J

co co 30 0 (.9 1989 ~ ------ .. < 20 ······-·--···-·········· -··· z

significant (P = 0.69). Four of 8 subadult males gobbled more during the preincubation period and 4 gobbled more during incubation. Only 5 indices were conducted during postincubation, precluding comparisons with other periods. Gobbling also appeared to increase progressively from the preseason, through the season, and into the postseason (Table 1 ), but again, because of individual variation, no comparisons were significant (P = 0.076, 0.222, and 0.688 for preseason vs. season, preseason vs. postseason, and season vs. postseason, respectively). Four males gobbled most during the postseason. The other 4 males did not gobble in the postseason, but instead gobbled most in the preseason (3) and season (1).

DISCUSSION

Lockwood and Sutcliffe (1985) estimated the median incubation date for Merriam's wild turkeys in southeastern New Mexico to be 20 May. In central Arizona, Scott and Boeker (1972) reported the peak of hatch occurred around 15 June; backdating 28 days places the peak of incubation around 19 May. Nest initiation dates in South Dakota ranged from 20 April to 13 June (Wertz and Flake 1988). The corresponding incubation dates were 15 May and 8 July. No distinction was made between first and second nest attempts. Hatching dates for 15 nests in Oregon occurred over an 8-day period from 28 May to 4 June (Lutz and Crawford 1987). Incubation dates for these nests ranged from 2 to 8 May and were similar to dates reported by Mackey (1982) in Washing-ton. Unpublished data from northern Arizona (H. G. Shaw, Ariz. Game and Fish Dep.) and southeastern Montana (J. E. Gobielle, Mont. State Univ.) indicated most hens started incu-bation in early May and late May, respectively. The Montana data may have included second nest attempts. Jonas (1966), in contradiction to Gobielle's data, reported incubation in south-eastern Montana started in late April-early May. Jonas (1966) derived incubation dates indirectly from hatching dates assigned to poults visually aged in the field or from harvest samples of poults that were aged based on primary measurement techniques developed for eastern wild turkeys (M. g. silvestris) (Knoder 1959). This approach produced an inflated estimate of age and consequently an earlier estimate for onset of incubation.

29

Wild Turkey GobbUng and Nesting • Hoffman

I found the peak of incubation (16-25 May) in southcentral Colorado and northcentral New Mexico approximated ( ±2 weeks) dates reported from elsewhere within the native and expanded range of the Merriam's wild turkey. This relative uniformity among states suggests that photoperiod ultimately controls nesting. Photoperiod best explained the synchrony of turkey nesting in Vermont (Wallin 1983). Spring weather has a secondary influence on timing of nesting as evidenced by earlier nesting in 1989 compared with 1986 and 1988. Vangilder et al. (1987) attributed annual variations in nesting chronology to spring temperatures. However, there appears to be a period, regardless of weather, before which hens will not initiate nesting. In my study and the study in southeastern New Mexico (Lockwood and Sutcliffe 1985), no hens started incubation before 6 May despite annual differences in spring weather conditions. Late April seems to be the earliest Merriam's wild turkeys initiate incubation.

The median date for onset of incubation by Rio Grande wild turkeys (M. g. intermedia) in northeastern Colorado in 1986 was 6 May (Schmutz and Braun 1989). The median date of incubation on my study area in 1986 was 18 May, almost 2 weeks later. Rio Grandes were incubating as early as 21 April. Phenological differences between study areas were at least partially responsible for the advanced nesting in northeastern Colorado, but behavioral or physiological differences between subspecies also may have attributed to earlier nesting by Rio Grandes.

In Minnesota, the primary peak of gobbling associated with mating was consistent among years and occurred during the third and fourth weeks of April (Porter and Ludwig 1980). A secondary peak of shorter duration occurred in mid-May. Gobbling was heard throughout the monitoring period from 1 April to 17 June. Bevill (1975) documented a similar pattern of gobbling activity in South Carolina, except the primary (mid-Apr) and secondary (late Apr) peaks were earlier. Dates when gobbling was first and last heard ranged from 1 March to 10 July (Bevill 1973). Gobbling activity in Alabama peaked during the first and last weeks of April and ceased by mid-June (Davis 1969). The chronology of gobbling activities in Colorado and New Mexico most closely resembled the patterns observed in Minnesota.

Proceedin&Y of the Sixth National Wild Turkey Symposium

Methods used to monitor and quantify gobbling have differed among studies, malting comparisons difficult. Bevill (1973, 1975) recorded AM gobbling from fixed stations. He monitored both general and individual gobbling behaviors. Most other studies (Donohoe and Martinson 1963, Scott and Boeker 1972, Porter and Ludwig 1980) focused on general gobbling behavior and generated data from morning call-count routes. Davis (1969) used a combination of call-count routes and fiXed stations to study general gobbling behavior. I conducted AM and PM gobbling indices on individuals. The location of the index depended upon where the bird roosted.

Wide daily variations in gobbling activity were apparent in all studies. When individuals were studied, it was apparent some males called more prolifically than others. Weather conditions accounted for some of this variation (Davis 1969, Bevill 1973), as did progression of the breeding season, and especially onset of incubation. I found that gobbling increased on the roost and in the absence of hens. None of the aforementioned studies specifically assessed gobbling in the presence or absence of hens. If gobbling serves to attract females (Bailey 1967:105), then gobbling should intensify in the absence of hens, which it did. But, males still gobbled in the presence of hens and did not always gobble in their absence, suggesting gobbling may function in other ways besides attracting females.

Gobbling was most consistently heard during the morning when males were still on the roost. Bevill (1975) recorded his highest counts during the 20 minutes preceding sunrise. In 89 days of monitoring, he heard > 1 gobble on 53 (60%) mornings between 10 and 20 minutes before sunrise. I heard gobbling 73% of the time during the same interval. Bevill's (1973) study further indicated that adult eastern wild turkeys gobbled more than subadults. Converting his data to gobbles/hour revealed that adults go

Documents

Proceedings of the sixth national wild turkey symposium · 2015. 11. 19. · FORWARD The first National Wild Turkey Symposium was held in Memphis, Tennessee in 1959, and the second